The decision made by the Yolo County District Attorney’s office to prosecute 12 protesters for their involvement in the demonstration and blockade of the US Bank Branch located in UC Davis’ Memorial Union has energized a movement that had previously seemed to be on the verge of exhausting itself.
A campaign has been launched to convince the Yolo County DA’s Office and the Office of the Chancellor to drop the charges against the protesters.
In a Facebook post, organizers write: “This pattern of retroactive repression is the administration’s newest tool to avoid the backlash and negative media attention that followed the infamous pepper spray incident of November 18th. This approach seeks not only to punish specific demonstrators but also to send a clear message to all university students: If you protest, we will prosecute; speak out and you will be silenced.”
They message continues: “Send a message that this repression will not be tolerated! Contact the Yolo County District Attorney and the Office of the Chancellor and demand that they drop charges against the Bankers Dozen!”
A petition has been launched by UC Davis Faculty “in opposition to retroactive legal measures against student demonstrators.”
The letter, signed by nearly 100 members of the faculty from across many different departments and including faculty members active in this community for years, not only opposes charging the students but supports the core underlying principles of the blockage itself.
They write, “We reiterate our support for the principled and determined actions of UC students and faculty to defend the public character of the UC system against privatization, a goal with which the blockade of the US Bank branch was consistent.”
They argue, “It is important to understand the political content of this blockade: the demonstrators continually stated their opposition to the substitution of private contracts for public funding of the UC system, and they continually pointed out conflicts of interest related to University contracts with corporations profiting from student loan interest as the UC administration continues to increase tuition, thus forcing many students to take out increased loans.”
“Opposition to the use of force against demonstrating students in November 2011 was not only directed against police brutality, but also against the UC Davis administration’s repression of political activism on our campus,” they continue. “We view the use of retroactive legal actions against demonstrating students as an effort to carry out such repression of political activity while attempting to evade the public scrutiny to which the administration’s repressive measures have been subjected.”
They add, “Moreover, in this case these retroactive legal actions clearly target a small sub-group of the demonstrators involved in blockading the bank, suggesting that specific demonstrators are being targeted for selective prosecution so as to single out and intimidate the most active student protesters.”
They urge the District Attorney’s Office “to exercise its option not to prosecute those cases that have been forwarded in relation to the US Bank blockade, or to reverse the decision to prosecute if it has already been made. Further, we request an end to the use of retroactive legal action as a punitive measure against political protesters on our campus.”
Similar tactics appear to be being used in Berkeley. Activists from Berkeley, written by “several of those charged for the events of Nov. 9″ note, “As the recipients of a similar set of belated charges from the Alameda County DA, brought against us in relations to the events of November 9 at UC Berkeley, when students tried to set up a small ‘Occupy’ encampment there and were viciously beaten by the police, we want to extend our solidarity to the 12 protesters charged.”
“We condemn this opportunism on the behalf of UC Davis police and administration. They are clearly using the Yolo County DA to accomplish repression which they feel they are unable to undertake on their own, after the widespread public outrage at their behavior last fall, when sitting protesters were serially and vindictively pepper-sprayed,” they write.
They add, “Afraid of public outrage and its endangerment of their jobs, UC administrators and police departments have farmed out the job of repressing students to local prosecutors.”
“This allows the campus administrators to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the charges, claiming such matters entirely outside of their jurisdiction, even though in all of these cases charges could not have been brought without the active encouragement and collaboration of campus police,” they continue.
The protesters believe this was a retroactive response by authorities that would not have occurred had the bank not decided to close its doors.
Kristin Koster, one of the bank blockers who was not arrested, told the Vanguard that, most likely, the purpose of this decision was to protect the university from a potential lawsuit from US Bank.
“It’s important to note that the UCD administration first sent the names of protestors to SJA in February,” she told the Vanguard, about referrals to Student Judicial Affairs (SJA).
It was only when US Bank announced its intention to close, she said, “The administration cancelled the SJA meetings, and elected to have the police forward the names of a larger group of students and faculty to the DA.”
“This decision makes sense from the university’s perspective, as a way to protect itself from a lawsuit,” she said.
The News and Review asks the same question we do, “The gravity of the charges against the Davis Dozen – and the fact that UCD waited nearly three months to file them – now begs the question: Do the prosecutions have more to do with the university’s U.S. Bank liability than with the protesters’ alleged crimes?”
UCD spokesperson Barry Shiller says no, “If they had not broken the law, we would still not be talking about this.”
The protesters, the News and Review reports, argue, “The charges show the administration’s new strategy of ‘retroactive repression,’ or delayed prosecution so as to avoid media attention.”
However, as Mr. Shiller told the paper, “If they hadn’t been warned every day, if people had not been there every day, I would find that argument to be a bit more credible,”
Mr. Shiller told the Enterprise, “This notion of retroactivity – it’s novel, but it’s not supported by the facts.”
He added, “The idea that this was retroactive implies surprise or that this is some sort of ‘gotcha.’ That’s just not so.”
But I think the idea of retroactive implies something else – that the university was reacting to the fact that the bank closed rather than the actions of the protesters themselves. The students believe, perhaps with some justification, that the university made the decision to prosecute in an effort to perhaps show US Bank that they are serious about protecting their property.
On the other hand, the university believes that it did everything it could to warn protesters of possible consequences. The demonstrations, including the blocking of customers and employees, Mr. Shiller argues, occurred daily from mid-January through late February.
He told the Vanguard, “Campus representatives tried daily for nearly two months to engage these individuals, both to understand their motives and try to reach some common ground. Over the ensuing weeks, notices were posted and handed out, explaining the potential legal consequences of blocking the bank entrance.”
He argued, “This, too, had no discernible effect.”
Mr. Shiller would argue that the committed protesters perhaps desired direct police confrontation.
He told the Vanguard, “Speculation about the latter point aside, our patient approach helped end the January occupation of the former Cross Cultural Center after a few days, without incident. It certainly was worth attempting the same approach at the bank.”
From their perspective, once the bank left, it became clear this approach simply did not work.
There are a couple of points that we make in response to the claims and counterclaims. First, some have suggested that this is a conscious plan to take the matter out of the hands of the police which will trigger confrontations, and put the matter into the hands of prosecutors.
I would suggest that if this works, it may become more a model for the future. But I think it was an ad hoc decision based on a sequence of events rather than a plan.
Second comes the question as to whether this was the right decision. This is one reason I continued to believe that the students have a point and there is a motivation to right things with US Bank by prosecuting the students here. Because otherwise the move doesn’t make a lot of sense.
You are not preventing an action. Despite what some claim, prosecutions of students is not going to discourage future demonstrations and, in fact, may encourage them. There is a notion of punishment for the sake of imposing consequences, but that tactic comes with a price to be paid.
UC Davis may win this battle, but lose the war because they have once again mobilized the opposition that perhaps could have been simply allowed to wither and die had no prosecution taken place.
Finally, the move is surprising for the DA’s office, who had managed to avoid this political conflagration until now. Now they will find themselves part of the targeted class.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I felt like I read the same article just a couple of days ago.
That’s weird because this article quotes from a faculty petition which we had not seen, it quotes from a student call to action that we had not seen, it quotes from a Berkeley letter that we had not seen, and it quotes follow up material from Barry Shiller. So I question how closely you read this article.
[quote]UC Davis may win this battle, but lose the war because they have once again mobilized the opposition that perhaps could have been simply allowed to wither and die had no prosecution taken place.[/quote]
I, for one, do not equate this incident with the pepper spry incident. In the pepper spray incident the police over reacted to a peaceful demonstration. In this case students blocked commerce and interfered with a campus vendor. Also, one of the first principles of passive resistance is that you may have to be arrested. So this goes with the territory.
“This pattern of retroactive repression is the administration’s newest tool to avoid the backlash and negative media attention that followed the infamous pepper spray incident of November 18th. This approach seeks not only to punish specific demonstrators but also to send a clear message to all university students: If you protest, we will prosecute; speak out and you will be silenced.”
What is “retroactive repression”? Two days ago, this gang made up “retroactive prosecution.” Next, it’ll be, “retroactive holocaust-ism,” although is it doesn’t quite have the same ring.
Better “retroactive prosecution” than “preventive prosecution,” eh? Don’t these folks realize that it’s tha American way to wait until one breaks a law before one is charged?
“You are not preventing an action. Despite what some claim, prosecutions of students is not going to discourage future demonstrations and, in fact, may encourage them.”
Funny, it’s the demonstrators who are claiming that the university is trying to send a message with the prosecution, “speak up and we’ll be mean.”
Who are these “some,” David (…some…what claim…prosecution…to discourage future demonstrations”)? I haven’t read a single comment from someone wanting to discourage future demonstrations.
“They add, ‘Afraid of public outrage and its endangerment of their jobs, UC administrators and police departments have farmed out the job of repressing students to local prosecutors’.”
No, it’s JUSTICE that’s “farmed out” to the court system in America, the Constitutional right to a fair trial. In spite of reading about retroactive this-and-that every couple days, we never seem to read anything from these folks explaining why they felt it necessary to BREAK THE LAW while they demonstrated.
Demonstrating, of course, is not a crime; demonstrating is not what they’ve been charged with. Overlooking this inconvenient truth explains all one needs to know about the confusion being reported here.
[quote]dmg: “In a Facebook post, organizers write: “This pattern of retroactive repression is the administration’s newest tool to avoid the backlash and negative media attention that followed the infamous pepper spray incident of November 18th. This approach seeks not only to punish specific demonstrators but also to send a clear message to all university students: If you protest, we will prosecute; speak out and you will be silenced…
They add, “Moreover, in this case these retroactive legal actions clearly target a small sub-group of the demonstrators involved in blockading the bank, suggesting that specific demonstrators are being targeted for selective prosecution so as to single out and intimidate the most active student protesters.””[/quote]
No, this is not the university’s attempt to squelch free speech, but the university’s nonviolent way of taking care of students who disobey the law by blocking an on campus bank branch from doing business.
[quote]dmg: They write, “We reiterate our support for the principled and determined actions of UC students and faculty to defend the public character of the UC system against privatization, a goal with which the blockade of the US Bank branch was consistent.”
They argue, “It is important to understand the political content of this blockade: the demonstrators continually stated their opposition to the substitution of private contracts for public funding of the UC system, and they continually pointed out conflicts of interest related to University contracts with corporations profiting from student loan interest as the UC administration continues to increase tuition, thus forcing many students to take out increased loans.”[/quote]
I’m not following the argument here. Having an on campus bank was privatization? How so? All it did was provide a convenient service while generating some income for student services, so that student fees did not have to be raised as much for student activities. And it is hardly likely the state is going to increase funding to public universities as long as the universities somehow find the money to give bonuses to the upper echelon, continue to make building improvements and the like.
[quote]dmg: But I think the idea of retroactive implies something else – that the university was reacting to the fact that the bank closed rather than the actions of the protesters themselves. The students believe, perhaps with some justification, that the university made the decision to prosecute in an effort to perhaps show US Bank that they are serious about protecting their property.[/quote]
Yet the fact that the same tactics are being used by UC Berkeley undercuts the argument that the prosecution of the “Davis 12” was a result of the university reacting to the bank closure…
[quote]dmg: You are not preventing an action. Despite what some claim, prosecutions of students is not going to discourage future demonstrations and, in fact, may encourage them. [/quote]
You don’t know that! It very well may work. Obviously the pepper-spray approach didn’t work; and patient nonviolent engagement didn’t work. So perhaps a police record and some community service will change their minds…
[quote]dmg: UC Davis may win this battle, but lose the war because they have once again mobilized the opposition that perhaps could have been simply allowed to wither and die had no prosecution taken place.[/quote]
Or perhaps UCD lost the pepper-spray battle but may win the protest war… only time will tell… However I would argue that if anarchy is allowed to reign, we will all be the losers…
“You don’t know that! “
I suspect it pretty strongly, particularly based on the response. The students are emboldened now, not deterred from what I can see. Evidence? They immediately occupied Mrak Hall in response to this. It took police and university officials two hours after closing to get them out of Mrak.
[quote]I suspect it pretty strongly, particularly based on the response. The students are emboldened now, not deterred from what I can see. Evidence? They immediately occupied Mrak Hall in response to this. It took police and university officials two hours after closing to get them out of Mrak.[/quote]
Two hours? Big whoop! They blocked the bank for MONTHS…
David, I would enjoy reading a coherent article by the Protest leaders that lays out what positive/constructive end they were trying to accomplish by blocking the bank in the first place. As I said in the earlier thread, my 20/20 hindsight on my own personal actions as an occupier of Barton Hall at Cornell in 1969 was that I was part of theatre. I suspect that the same is true of the current situation here in Davis.
David, I think it’s the repetitive nature of the Vanguard reporting to which those two are referring. just because the same bullshit appears in yet another format or forum doesn’t make it worthy of yet another Vanguard article filled with lengthy, cut-and-paste sections of propaganda that have appeared here over and over. And, repeating your commentary doesn’t offer anything fresh.
Your invitation to them to write an op-ed ignores the opportunity you give all of us to repeat our same old reactions to your same old stories, but it does point out that you’re the one running the place.
If you want to keep repeating Ms. Koster’s unwarranted contentions about the university’s reasons for complaining about law-breaking on campus and Mr. Shiller’s odd retort about retroactivity implying surprise, fine. A less grating way would be to refer to the earlier stories with a single sentence and a link.
Even the new stuff here isn’t really new. (“updated material. old talking points,” as 91 octane notes.). It’s a little troublesome to me that the Vanguard his taking on a propaganda tool role, even though any of us has the right to support without question any cause we want. I’d rather the Vanguard would attempt a reporting+commentary approach instead of having the opinion drive the reporting.
The blockade folks obviously have undertaken a planned PR campaign to convince us of a number of things that defy reality; more accurately, a dis-information campaign or propaganda effort. If we don’t accept the idea that providing banking services is privatizing university financing anymore than contracting with Burger King is, that’s just a difference of opinion.
But, most of the contentions being made are more significant and have no purpose or basis beyond concerted efforts to discredit UCD leadership. Without even the slightest proof, these claims of university bad motives for various decisions have a hard time gaining traction outside the Occupy and university communities. Hence, the need for a propaganda approach of constant repetition of falsehoods to convince others.
“You don’t know that! ”
“I suspect it pretty strongly, particularly based on the response. The students are emboldened now, not deterred from what I can see. Evidence? They immediately occupied Mrak Hall in response to this. It took police and university officials two hours after closing to get them out of Mrak.”
You keep saying UCD was wrong in not dragging the blockaders out weeks ago instead of deciding to let this non-violent, albeit illegal, act continue and then charge them for their crimes. My strong suspicion is that the demonstrators wouldn’t have been cooperative, and their response would have been little different (except they’d have returned to the bank doorway instead of Mrak screaming about how injured they are becausheld the university police actions in moving them).
That students are emboldened isn’t exactly a genius observation. When you can determine what WON’T embolden them–and do it before the fact–your services will be in great demand.
Elaine touched on something. the vanguard argues that this prosecutorial move emboldened the protestors to act out, but they have been acting out for months all over the place, including US bank. It is clear that unless they are physically stopped, they are going to keep doing it be it against US bank or something elsse. So what does the university have to lose with this maneuver?
When the University demurred on arresting the twelve individuals now being charged with a crime, nearly three months after the fact, they gave any decent defense attorney a golden opportunity to point out that they only had a problem with student demonstrators when they were staring straight into the eye of a lawsuit from U.S. Bank. If that’s not retroactive behavior I sure don’t know what else to call it.
This whole U.C. saga just gets better every day!
[quote][u]David[/u]: “UC Davis may win this battle, but lose the war because they have once again mobilized the opposition that perhaps could have been simply allowed to wither and die had no prosecution taken place.”
[u]Dr. Wu[/u]: I, for one, do not equate this incident with the pepper spry incident. In the pepper spray incident the police over reacted to a peaceful demonstration. In this case students blocked commerce and interfered with a campus vendor. Also, one of the first principles of passive resistance is that you may have to be arrested. So this goes with the territory.”[/quote]It is so true, Dr. Wu. But, consider how critical all the arguments that follow require a strong, serious connection. The blockade law-breakers’ claims (as well as David’s contention that UCD leadership chickened out in choosing not to clear out the bank–the “demonstrator catch and release” approach) needs the a university belief in the equation for its logic.
If we can be convinced that UCD officials viewed the two demonstrations essentially as one being a continuation of the another, then we might buy the allegation that they were too paralyzed by their fear to have cops clear the bank. Then, we might accept that the bank retreat was UCD’s fault rather than the demonstrators’ in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
Then, we might give some credence to the charge that UCD got surprised–rather than the demonstrators–by the bank’s “premature” action to give up. If that seems credible, maybe UCD could be said to have complained to the DA in order to demonstrate their toughness to the bank rather than to be acting like any victims of law-breakers.
And, if all those things fall neatly into place, we could argue there’s some miscarriage of justice underway because of the timing of the charges–in spite of the novelty of this defense approach.
So, Dr. Wu, each of the “logic” of the outrageous, unreasonable claims that the university is acting out of this or that devious, selfish motive delicately rests on the initial claim that you so wisely have questioned and subsequently balanced on all of the others that precede it.
“Two hours? Big whoop! They blocked the bank for MONTHS…”
The point wasn’t that this was a comparable action, the point is that the prosecution actually encouraged further actions rather than stopping it.
“David, I would enjoy reading a coherent article by the Protest leaders that lays out what positive/constructive end they were trying to accomplish by blocking the bank in the first place.”
I don’t know about an article but I can probably get an interview from them and write the article. The thing that kind of strikes me about all of this is how much it simply resembles the dog who catches the car analogy.
There is no doubt that there was anger focused on the bank because of the nature of their deal, but they were very much a target of opportunity and given the confined space and layout of the MU, it turns out a very vulnerable one.
I can’t possibly imagine that the protesters actually believed they could close the bank. I know they said that was their goal, but I have a lot of “goals” that I don’t realistically expect to make either.
“If you want to keep repeating Ms. Koster’s unwarranted contentions about the university’s reasons for complaining about law-breaking on campus and Mr. Shiller’s odd retort about retroactivity implying surprise, fine. A less grating way would be to refer to the earlier stories with a single sentence and a link.”
The problem is that you guys are regular readers of these articles. I’m not writing them just for the regular readers, I have to assume that no one has read anything previously and provide the proper background. Links are fine, but most people don’t click backlinks whereas they might read through the story. So if you have to live with my repeating the lines of Mr. Shiller, which btw, I added to his response as well, then why does it matter?
80% of this article is stuff that I have never reported before and 80% of the people who read this article have not read the previous ones.
So from my standpoint, your point doesn’t even make sense.
“When you can determine what WON’T embolden them–and do it before the fact–your services will be in great demand.”
Yes I think you’re correct. However, I think you are missing a point, the movement was dying and it was pumped new life by recent actions.
“but they have been acting out for months all over the place, including US bank. “
Octane: Part of the problem here is that you are not seeing what I see on a daily basis. What I see are announced actions by this group on a regular basis that end up in being nothing. I’ll give you an example, a few weeks ago there was an announced march from the park to City Hall, three people showed up.
However, the next week after the arrests, a march was announced in much the same way and probably 500 people showed up.
To me, the last few events were such duds, I stopped showing up to most of them being a waste of time. The movement was dying. Now it’s alive again and energized.
“I can’t possibly imagine that the protesters actually believed they could close the bank. I know they said that was their goal, but I have a lot of “goals” that I don’t realistically expect to make either.”
LOL, they said it was their goal and they succeeded. Does the fact that you say it was a rather lofty goal somehow make them not culpable for their actions? Sorry, but now it’s time to pay up.
So exactly what is your point David? Why did they squat there for months then? It wasn’t like they tried it for a few days then whamo, all of a sudden the bank pulled out. They were diligent with their protest to the point where the bank finally said enough is enough.
My point was to answer Matt’s question as to what they were trying to accomplish with their action.
This article is not 80% new material. It describes a Facebook post which is a rehash of the talk that was given a couple days ago hitch was a rehash of the statements given when the charges were delivered which was a rehash of statements given during the blocade with reaction to the charges added as new material.
Every minute new add-on doesn’t call for yet another major piece, particularly if it’s identical to (just pasted in from) a very recent major article which was an update from another recent significant piece. I’m not sure why you want each one to be able to stand alone rather than linking it to the same language from a week before.
Furthermore, the demonstrator you quoted every time had no apparent reason to know what the university officials were thinking, yet you continued to use her same argument in the same words. What’s the point?
So, we end up rearguing essentially the same points in response to essentially the same Vanguard story.
For example, how you can suggest that the blockaders could have had no clue they’d be successful in shutting down the bank since you now suggest you couldn’t have anticipated it. Yet, you contend the university should have anticipated their success and dragged the demonstrators off to jail to stop it (for a day or to) since you now suggest you could have anticipated the demonstrators’ successful effort.
updated material. old talking points.
I invite both Octane and Rusty to submit their own op-eds on a subject of their choosing that relates to Yolo County contemporary news/ controversies.
It describes three things: (1) an effort by the protesters and supporters to lobby the DA’s office, (2) an effort by faculty members to do the same; (3) supportive effort by Berkeley protesters.
“I’m not sure why you want each one to be able to stand alone rather than linking it to the same language from a week before.”
Because, again, my experience is people don’t click the links and most haven’t read the back article
“Furthermore, the demonstrator you quoted every time had no apparent reason to know what the university officials were thinking, yet you continued to use her same argument in the same words. What’s the point? “
(A) it is a quote from the protesters, (B) it sums up their thinking at this point whether you agree or disagree with it (C) I think it’s dead on whether she had a reason to know or not.
“For example, how you can suggest that the blockaders could have had no clue they’d be successful in shutting down the bank since you now suggest you couldn’t have anticipated it. “
I’m not completely sure what you are saying here, but I say what I say primarily because I’d never in a thousand years have believed that the bank would actually leave.
“Yet, you contend the university should have anticipated their success and dragged the demonstrators off to jail to stop it (for a day or to) since you now suggest you could have anticipated the demonstrators’ successful effort.”
That’s not really what I am arguing at all. At some point it should have been obvious to them what they were doing was not working. I don’t even necessarily fault the initial strategy which Shiller rightly points out worked on at least two previous occasions.
Protesters could have been quietly arrested at their various homes or other locations, individually, out of the public eye, during the time period of the protest and “blockade”.
The VERY belated nature of these arrests indicates at least one or more
agendas other than normal law enforcement and prosecution.
Thanks David – the faculty statement is quite informative.
“Better “retroactive prosecution” than “preventive prosecution,” eh? Don’t these folks realize that it’s tha American way to wait until one breaks a law before one is charged? “
I am sure that they do. However, it is not the usual “American way” to wait until a business threatens a lawsuit before charging folks who were clearly breaking the law. Please some lawyer correct me if I am incorrect on this.
“LOL, they said it was their goal and they succeeded. Does the fact that you say it was a rather lofty goal somehow make them not culpable for their actions?”
First, it was not a comment about culpability. You need to read the comment in context. Second, the point is that they had no reasonable belief that they were going to succeed with their action – whether it was their goal or not. It’s like throwing up a half court shot casually and having it go in.
How long do you think the statute of limitations should be for these clear crimes? The charges has nothing to do with the bank contract. The penalty for the law-breaking, if these criminals are found guilty, might be stiffer because the damages are higher than the would have been if it was a week-long demonstration rather than a three-month blocade.
Where did you get the idea that anyone timed the charging with the timing of threats of a lawsuit?
To those wondering whether the UC Davis Admin forwarded the names of the blockaders to the DA after US Bank decided to close, please address this timeline:
Feb21: US Bank still open [Ref] ([url]”http://www.theaggie.org/2012/02/21/120221_ca_usbank/”[/url])
Feb24: UC Davis filed complaints to DA [Ref] ([url]”http://dateline.ucdavis.edu/dl_detail.php?id=13890″[/url])
Mar1: US Bank inform UC Davis that it will hold UC Davis liable for all costs [Ref] ([url]”http://news.ucdavis.edu/download/201203/UCDavis_ termination_notice_letter_3.1.12.PDF”[/url])
Mar5: UC Davis replied to US Bank that US Bank didn’t give a 30 day notice for the default [Ref] ([url]”http://news.ucdavis.edu/download/201203/Letter_to_Haworth_Fineman_3.5.12.pdf”[/url])
Mar16: UC Davis disclosed US Bank’s plan to close, and stated that 6 cases were forwarded to DA. As of Mar15, the DA had not completed reviewing the files. [Ref] ([url]”http://dateline.ucdavis.edu/dl_detail.php?id=13917″[/url])
Mar18: US Bank announced to customers that the branch has closed, according to a [Ref] ([url]”http://bicyclebarricade.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/us-bank-flees-in-terror-from-direct-action/”[/url])
My interpretation is that UC Davis had already forward cases to DA before they knew that US Bank was going to close. US Bank’s decision to close was a surprise to UC Davis Admin.
“The charges has nothing to do with the bank contract. The penalty for the law-breaking”
You are correct in a technical sense. But the charge is that they were filed due to the fact that the bank left in order to encourage the bank to come back or another bank to come in.
In the words of the vanguard: “It’s called accountability. I’d even suggest that it is justice.”
what goes around comes around.
dmg: “I can’t possibly imagine that the protesters actually believed they could close the bank. I know they said that was their goal, but I have a lot of “goals” that I don’t realistically expect to make either.”
How convenient and disingenuous a viewpoint!
JustSaying: “For example, how you can suggest that the blockaders could have had no clue they’d be successful in shutting down the bank since you now suggest you couldn’t have anticipated it. Yet, you contend the university should have anticipated their success and dragged the demonstrators off to jail to stop it (for a day or to) since you now suggest you could have anticipated the demonstrators’ successful effort.”
Excellent point!
dmg: “Yes I think you’re correct. However, I think you are missing a point, the movement was dying and it was pumped new life by recent actions.”
And the Vanguard is doing a good job of keeping this thing alive and well, no?
medwoman: “I am sure that they do. However, it is not the usual “American way” to wait until a business threatens a lawsuit before charging folks who were clearly breaking the law. Please some lawyer correct me if I am incorrect on this.”
Waiting to file a lawsuit until way after the incident has occurred is VERY COMMON…
To Edgar Wai: Thanks for the timeline! Completely debunks conspiracy theory that UCD forwarded complaint to DA bc of the bank closing…
[quote]what goes around comes around.[/quote]
And frankly, it’s about time!
“How convenient and disingenuous a viewpoint!”
How so?
“Thanks for the timeline! Completely debunks conspiracy theory that UCD forwarded complaint to DA bc of the bank closing…”
Not necessarily. One of the things I’m trying to get a hold of is actual correspondence between the two sides.
In the Steven Spielberg movie Minority Report crimes are predicted before they occur, and their perpetrators are charged and jailed before doing the crime. Apparently this is the model that we will need to move to now that “retroactive” charges are no longer allowed.
I think retroactive refers to the fact that the protesters were not arrested at the scene of the crime.
[quote]dmg: “I can’t possibly imagine that the protesters actually believed they could close the bank. I know they said that was their goal, but I have a lot of “goals” that I don’t realistically expect to make either.”
erm: How convenient and disingenuous a viewpoint!
dmg: How so? [/quote]
The bank protestors said they wanted to close the bank – but they must not have meant it – bc to admit they actually accomplished what they set out to do would be to concede they had malicious intent from the inception of the protest, and therefore should be arrested and tried for what they intended to/did actually do. To claim the bank protestors never meant to actually close the bank even tho they said that is what they wanted to do is a hypocritical and highly convenient view of their motives and ignores the actual evidence to the contrary…
[quote]In the Steven Spielberg movie Minority Report crimes are predicted before they occur, and their perpetrators are charged and jailed before doing the crime. Apparently this is the model that we will need to move to now that “retroactive” charges are no longer allowed.[/quote]
LOL Well put!
[quote]I think retroactive refers to the fact that the protesters were not arrested at the scene of the crime.[/quote]
And since when is their some sort of mythical requirement that perpetrators of a crime be arrested at the scene? Perpetrators are arrested long after a crime has occurred/”after the fact” all the time…
“To claim the bank protestors never meant to actually close the bank even tho they said that is what they wanted to do is a hypocritical and highly convenient view of their motives and ignores the actual evidence to the contrary…”
That’s actually not what I said. I never said they didn’t mean it, moreover it was not said for the purposes of culpability.
I think retroactive refers to the fact that the protesters were not arrested at the scene of the crime.
if that is the case, then that is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard…. people are arrested after the fact all the time…
a person robs a bank isn’t arrested as soon as he steps outside the bank…. he is arrested at his home later…
a man rapes a woman – the police aren’t at his doorstep the moment the rape occurs….
and this is no different give me a break… and since when is there some sort of 5 minute rule or something where a person has to be arrested within five minutes of a crime or the crime never took place?
91 Octane
Well put! The protester sympathizers are squirming because their radical friends are now in trouble. They are trying to gin up some new awakening of the occupy movement in order to try to run some backup for the protesters who are very much in trouble. I believe that a majority of the students have tired of these troublemakers and could care less (or even like it) if they have to pay for their misconduct.
…
“Thanks for the timeline! Completely debunks conspiracy theory that UCD forwarded complaint to DA bc of the bank closing…”
“Not necessarily. One of the things I’m trying to get a hold of is actual correspondence between the two sides.”
Nobody needed proof to make the claim or to print the claim. The Vanguard didn’t say, “Not necessarily. Wait a miniute, why do you keep claiming that? We don’t print unfounded, idle speculation?”
But, now that there’s apparently evidence to the contrary, let’s pooh-pooh it and announce we’re ready to launch a search for something, anything, that might discredit Edgar Wai’s documented timeline.
the other thing here is the protestors are pissed because they know if the police came to arrest the students on the spot, they could surround the police and goad them into pepperspray or some other incident like last time, and get the national media attention they are looking for. But the university and law enforcement are not playing their little game……. and they are pissed because of it and so is the vanguard. tough doo-doo.
91 Octane
“a person robs a bank isn’t arrested as soon as he steps outside the bank…. he is arrested at his home later…
a man rapes a woman – the police aren’t at his doorstep the moment the rape occurs….
and this is no different give me a break… and since when is there some sort of 5 minute rule or something where a person has to be arrested within five minutes of a crime or the crime never took place?”
I would say there is a substantial difference in these circumstances. The identities of the students and their wfere abouts were known to the police for at least a month. I doubt the police would wait a month to arrest a bank robber or a rapist given the same information. If so, it would be an invitation for them to commit the same crime again while the police were pondering whether or not to arrest them.
“Where did you get the idea that anyone timed the charging with the timing of threats of a lawsuit”
My error. Unless of course The University had been informed of the banks intention to close prior to February 24, in which case their is still the possibility that the banks impending closure played into their assessment of the situation.
“if that is the case, then that is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard…. people are arrested after the fact all the time…”
I at least partially agree with you on that.
“the other thing here is the protestors are pissed because they know if the police came to arrest the students on the spot, they could surround the police and goad them into pepperspray or some other incident like last time, and get the national media attention they are looking for. But the university and law enforcement are not playing their little game……. and they are pissed because of it and so is the vanguard. tough doo-doo.”
This one I don’t agree. The DA overreacting helps them quite a bit as well.
there is one critical difference: in the pepperspray incident, the students who precipitated the incident got off scott free and got law enforcement into trouble – here the situation is reversed.
While I think that arresting the blockaders after the fact does prevent another pepper spraying sort of incident, I tend to doubt that was the motivation. Additionally, the comments regarding the timing of the arrest is a little off. In the instances of a bank robbery or a rape or some other such crime, the reason the perpetrators aren’t arrested “at the scene” is because the police aren’t “at the scene” when the crime occured. I think the situation was a bit different for the bank blockade, which wasn’t a “hit and run” sort of an operation, now was it.